In PA (at least in northeastern PA) it is very hard to find any non-ethanol gas too. I just buy what is available. If I had a non-ethanol gas station closeby I’d use it as a first choice.
They didn’t change any laws, and we didn’t use over 10 billion gallons as fuel. Regardless, annual production should exceed 1 billion gallons within three years.
That said, anything that can reduce our use of fossil fuels is a positive for numerous political and environmental reasons.
Every station I ever go to gives the option of ethanol or reg. unleaded, and some have premium also. Shell would be one major chain I can think of right off.
OK-dokey, lets look at facts, not claims. From the US EIA:
“Projected ethanol production, which averaged 710,000 bbl/d in 2009, increases to an average of 850,000 bbl/d in 2010 and 870,000 bbl/d in 2011.”
710,000 bbl/d in 2009 = 10.9 BILLION gallons per year. Also, the forecast increase from 2010 to 2011 is over 300 million barrels, more than 10 times the cellulosic production forecast for 2011.
Read more here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html
Anything else?
USA Today had a good article on this in today’s issue (Oct 14th). According to the article, the EPA has “approved” E15 for all vehicles 2007 and newer. It is, according to the article, actually illegal to use E15 in an older vehicle (it is not an approved fuel), although they’re still testing and expect to approve it for use in older vehicles soon. They’re actively “encouraging” stations to convert. The approval was expedited due to pressure from a group of 54 ethanol producers. I’m sure that probably means the lobbyists from the group.
While E15 is only “approved” and not mandated, I think we all know that federal regulatory agencies are experts in creatively providing economic incentives for the regulated parties to comply with their “recommendations”. For example, I recall when states were all required to change their highway speed limits to 55 and make right turns on red legal or risk losing federal highway funds. This type of manipulation is a normal part of the operating methodologies of federal regulatory agencies.
Interestingly, fuels containing ethanol at any level are currently not approved fuels for small engines, farm machinery, and other such applications.
I have no doubt that E15 will replace E10 in the very near future. I also have no doubt that it’ll reduce mileage and create problems in many older vehicles…and I also have no doubt that the feds won’t care.
Sorry, but I’m not “sold” on E15, or even on E10’s alleged benefits.
I was in MN over the summer and they had a 91 octane ethanol free gas at the pumps, for off road use only, hope thy keep that, my boat loved it. I had used the regular gas for years, had a little work done and the repair guy said don’t use anything else.
Oil and corn make strange bed fellows. It appears to me that was an arranged nuptial based on political and economic interests of the two industries. Oil in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana draw a strong political ally against the environmentalists and all anti oil constituencies by pulling in the votes in the house and senate from the mid-western farming states; Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Wisconsin and Minnesota. The legislation has more to do with the establishment of a political power base than environmental issues. How many have seen the DIRTY COAL advertisements on television. Follow the money from those ads. Watch the W Virginia and Kentucky efforts to push coal hit the environmentalist brick wall that is being built with bricks pulled from the wall against oil.
Bingo. It’s like the banning of incandescent bulbs at four for $1.27 in lieu of flourescent bulbs at $4.95 each, another farce. It’s politics, lobbyists, and money money money.
It’s like the banning of incandescent bulbs at four for $1.27 in lieu of flourescent bulbs at $4.95 each…
Except they don’t cost $4.95 each. These CFLs only cost $1.46 each http://www.homedepot.com/Lighting-Fans-Light-Bulbs-Compact-Tube-Fluorescents/h_d1/N-5yc1vZar0oZ5ydld/R-100687000/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053
The things you say about CFLs were true when they were first developed, but times change, as does the technology.
An except from your own link…
“Because of the mercury issues, it’s unwise?and often illegal?to throw spent CFL bulbs in the trash. (A single broken bulb is one thing, but thousands upon thousands of broken bulbs in a garbage dump could be seriously bad news.”
And that statement comes from an article SUPPORTING CFLs. Now picture millions and millions of CFLs being disposed of nationwide. Yes, there will be that many.
Sorry, but there’s more politics than common sense going on here.
OK by me. I drive a diesel. Now if they start demanding Bio-diesel ?..
I know I’m a little late to the party, but President Obama is the responsible party, not the EPA. As you may (not) know, the president sets policy and the cabinet heads convey changes to the agency. In this case, President Obama probably said something like “let’s reduce gasoline use by 5% in x years”, and the EPA responded by suggesting increased ethanol use. The president then would have authorized the change after receiving a report. The EPA never, ever sets policy. Those agency staff members that set policy are fired quickly, which is why it almost never happens. The only time I recall it happening is when the CIA and the National Security Advisor assumed that President Reagan ordered them to set up the Iran-Contra affair. The president frequently said that he wished the hostages in Iran could be returned and devoted a lot of cabinet meeting time to those discussions. But he never authorized Iran-Contra. Casey would have been fired if he had lived long enough.
My boat trailer has a flat. The tire was fine when Bush was in office…
I have recently discovered they are selling E20 in central Illinois, which happens to be corn country. Fortunately, they have a choice of either E10, or E20.
It’s kind of funny to see conservative backlash to the EPA’s efforts, especially since the EPA was a gift to us from President Nixon.
Of course you should dispose of florescent bulbs properly. This has been good advice as long as florescent bulbs have been in use (more than 60 years), even before we started making them “compact.”
There are a number of items in my household that require special disposal, like batteries, used motor oil, the mercury in the old thermostat, the long cylindrical florescent bulbs people have been using for more than 60 years, etc. We don’t reject them because they must be disposed of properly, we just dispose of them properly.
I agree there is “more politics than common sense going on here,” but I also believe the pot is calling the kettle black. Everything you have said up until now has been an overreaction (“hazmat spill”) or flat out wrong (CFL prices). At least what you say about proper disposal is correct, but I am willing to bet you use disposable batteries, and I hope you don’t dispose of them in the trash. Fortunately, where I live, I can take my CFLs to the same collection site where I take my other items that shouldn’t be disposed of in the trash.
It seems that many former GOP presidents aren’t held in very high esteem by the party. In fact, only R Reagan seems to be held in high regards currently. Maybe his anti tax and anti union positions are especially dear to the current GOP leadership. Nixon’s price and wage fixing efforts combined with his withdrawing the troops from VN would have been his downfall regardless of Watergate and his legacy is persona non grata.
Nixon’s price and wage fixing efforts combined with his withdrawing the troops from VN would have been his downfall regardless of Watergate…
How do you explain the fact that Nixon was re-elected, in spite of the fact that the Watergate scandal was public at the time? In my opinion, if it hadn’t been for Watergate, nothing would have taken him down.
Nixon also pledged to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. I think he would have succeeded if it hadn’t been for Watergate. Every President since Nixon has made the same pledge, yet Obama seems to be the only one trying to deliver on that promise, much to the chagrin of today’s Republicans. If only today’s Republicans had a better sense of history, both parties could work together and be more effective than the Democrats are by themselves. All we need to do is look to great Republican Presidents like Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt to see how great Republican Presidents get things done.
The way today’s Republicans love Reagan is another indication they have no sense of history. After all, Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants and believed in sitting down and talking to our enemies, both of which are highly forbidden in today’s GOP.
“Nixon also pledged to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. I think he would have succeeded if it hadn’t been for Watergate. Every President since Nixon has made the same pledge, yet Obama seems to be the only one trying to deliver on that promise…”
Presidents can’t make that happen, including Obama. The can’t force us to use any specific fuel, nor can they force manufacturers to make only certain fuels. They can say “wouldn’t it be swell if…”, but they can’t make anyone outside the executive branch do anything; especially Congress.
“The way today’s Republicans love Reagan is another indication they have no sense of history. After all, Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants and believed in sitting down and talking to our enemies, both of which are highly forbidden in today’s GOP.”
Do you think that Abraham Lincoln would be a Republican today?
“Obama seems to be the only one trying to deliver on that promise”
Yep, halting all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico REALLY helped! I’m aware of NO significant action reducing our dependence.
jtsanders and texases, American Presidents have been pledging is to increase government investment in development of alternative and renewable fuel, which is something they can do. You are right, they can’t make us use a specific fuel, but they can invest in research and development.
texases, don’t get me started on off-shore drilling. I was for the ban, and I am against lifting the ban.
I’m aware of NO significant action reducing our dependence.
In that case, here are some actions I think are significant:
[b]Obama Budget Erases Fossil Fuel Subsidies, Ramps Up Nuclear Spending[/b] http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20100202/obama-budget-erases-fossil-fuel-subsidies-ramps-nuclear-spending
[b]Ethanol, Biofuel, Alternative Fuel quiet Progress by Obama Administration[/b] http://blogs.automotive.com/6531205/miscellaneous/ethanol-biofuel-alternative-fuel-quiet-progress-by-obama-administration/index.html
[b]Obama administration issues fuel efficiency rules[/b] Breitbart News Network
The only thing I have against these programs is that we should be paying for them as we go instead of using borrowed money to finance them.
As misguided as they may be, this whole discussion is about the EPA’s efforts to use more domestically-produced fuel. The EPA is under the President, so by extension, these new EPA recommendations are, at least in part, the President’s effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Yes, I think Lincoln would still be a Republican if he were alive today. I think he would be considered a moderate.